Judgment Summary
Title and neutral citation:
R (on the application of Bano) v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2026] UKSC 22.
Date of judgment handed down:
22nd July 2026.
Lord Stephens and Lady Rose gave the judgment. Lord Reed, Lord Sales, and Lord Hamblen agreed.
Court:
The Supreme Court.
Legal Issue:
The central question was whether a local authority’s duty to house homeless applicants ended when a Private Rented Sector Offer was made, or whether the local authority was required to make a separate decision that the duty had ended.
Background:
In December 2016, Ms Bano applied to Waltham Forest Council for assistance as a homeless person under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. Waltham Forest accepted that it owed Ms Bano the “main housing duty” under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996. In 2017, the Council arranged for Ms Bano to be provided with temporary accommodation in Newham. As this was a Private Rented Sector Offer, the Council stated that this would bring its duty to accommodate Ms Bano to an end.
Ms Bano did not accept this and sought a review of the decision to offer her this accommodation. The Council contended that she was out of time. However, Ms Bano argued that the Council still had a duty to accommodate her. She sought to judicially review this decision, meaning she asked the court to review whether the Council had acted lawfully. The Council defended the claim on the basis that she had an alternative remedy, meaning another legal process was available to challenge the decision, which she had refused.
Legal provision:
The main housing duty arises under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996, and section 193(7AA) provides that this duty ends automatically when an applicant accepts or refuses a compliant private rented sector offer.
The High Court:
She was successful in her judicial review claim as the Court ruled that the duty to accommodate her had not been discharged by the offer of accommodation in Derby. The Council appealed this.
Court of Appeal:
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and stated that Ms Bano’s refusal of the offer of accommodation in Derby alone was sufficient to discharge the duty. The Court accepted that the main housing duty ceased automatically when a homeless person owed that duty accepted or refused a suitable offer of accommodation.
She appealed to the Supreme Court. Permission to appeal was granted in 2025.
The Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision and dismissed her appeal. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the duty came to an end when Ms Bano rejected the offer. The Court also found that Ms Bano had a suitable alternative remedy by way of a review under section 202, which provides a process for a homeless applicant to ask the local authority to review certain decisions about their housing application.